The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I would recommend stripping out the products list and other improper parts, but it does seem to have enough sources available and the consensus is to put them in. Dennis 2¢ 23:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KB INDELA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established. Significance not established. Reads more like a website then a Wikipedia Article. Only contributor seems to have a WP:COI with the article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a private company, with no indication of notability. I found nothing useful. Even the single article listed only mentions INDELA briefly. --Larry (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the Russian language page I found what looks like valid RS 1 2 and establish notability. Some Russian speaking editors should get involved to improve the article and adress the issues raised by nom.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very good references in the ruWP. (I think they are a little erratic about notability , so the presence of an articlethere does not necessarily imply there should be one here also. But in this particular case, the information there is valuable in showing notability according to our standards.) I wish people translating articles would at least copy over the references, to make it apparent that they exist--they may have to be replaced or reorganized or translated, but having them in the enWP article in any form is a start. My Russian is rudimentary, but РУССКАЯ ПЛАНЕТА seems a reliable source, as does the Russian Unnmanned Vehicle Systems Association and http://news.tut.by. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.